ShtLE No1 Mk1* gunmetal buttplate and other details

Questions from a newbie: I've just bought (not yet collected) a No1 mk1*from EFD in the UK. It's been quite well restored but there are some details which I understand from Skennerton and the 1907 1*** in the Milsurps knowledge library aren't correct for a 1*. I'm happy though, as I was aware of these issues before I made the purchase and for me it's a good compromise between total originality and practical shootability. I would like to bring the rifle closer to originality over time though.

The rifle is a 1906 BSA 1*, but currently has the sheet steel buttplate and single screw swivel as per Mk1. I believe it should have a gunmetal buttplate with trap and an inletted two screw rear swivel. It also clearly has a Mk III safety (it has III engraved on it), and it probably has a few other later parts as well.

But as the 1* was in production for just over one year in peacetime, and almost all the production was subsequently upgraded to 1***, presumably there just aren't many gunmetal buttplates in existence? No-one I know has ever seen one - do they exist outside museums? Does anyone have a photo of one so I can see what I should have? I'm taking the view that a sympathetic restoration should go 'forward' to parts that might plausibly have been replaced in service, rather than 'backwards' to parts from previous models, so I'm intending to fit a brass buttplate until (if ever) I can locate the right part.

Similarly, I know the Mk 1 (or MLE) swivel currently fitted isn't correct. Is the correct swivel the same pattern as the MkIII, and inletted the in same way?

Lastly, how do I tell the difference between a MkIII safety catch and banjo spring and those for a 1*?

No photos avaiable 'til I pick it up in a couple of weeks, I'm afraid.
Many thanks for sharing your expertise.

Attachment 45235Attachment 45236



Photo of Mark 1 * rear swivel on a Enfield 1904 upgraded to Mark 1*** but still with the original Mark 1 buttstock

Thank you RCS. That's defintitely not a Mk III part - is it a deeper profile 'two screw' fitting? If it is, is the swivel itself the same as later SMLE's? A photo of taken from below would be very useful, as it looks like a part that could be fabricated, although it would have to be milled rather than cast.

You cant just convert a Mk1 SMLE butt to a Mk1* butt, the steel butt plate is a different shape to the brass butt plate, best to swap for a MkIII butt & save ruining a Mk1 butt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lashenden

It also clearly has a Mk III safety (it has III engraved on it),

---

Hi Lashenden. I have a few brass butt-plated butts lying around (I'm in New Zealand so sending one to you may be a bit costly assuming one would the right one and anyway, they're not in great shape). You say 'gunmetal' butt-plate? Were some made from gunmetal then? I thought they were brass. Being the last outpost of the British Empire, there are a few Lee Enfield and their parts lying around - several in my cupboard (all Bubba'd I'm afraid - I would like one collector Lee Enfield though).

Oh, I meant to say I think the III on the safety pertains to the safety itself, not the rifle.

Thank you 303Guy! The gunmetal buttplate is one the changes identified by Ian Skennerton in the change from Mk1 to 1*. His list of 1* features is that the design is basically same as a Mk1 except the buttplate changes from steel without trap to gunmetal with trap, rear swivel changes from single screw to inlet two screw, a slightly deeper profile magazine is fitted, stamped '2', the firing pin keeper is redesigned from the earlier knurled button to a screw head with wide slot for use with a coin and fitted slightly more flush with the back face of the cocking piece. That's everything he mentions, but the list may be incomplete.

As I cautiously suggested in my original post, the Mk1* was approved in late March '06, and was superceded by the MkIII in April '07, so they weren't manufactured for very long - I'm guessing no more than 150,000 were ever made. If most were subsequently upgraded to 1*** and fitted with brass buttplates around 1914, there just can't be many gunmetal buttplates left in existence 100 years later, and presumably gunmetal wasn't such a good idea anyway, or they wouldn't have gone over to brass - too expensive, perhaps, or too prone to damage in service? Anyway, I'm just channelling Skennerton here - I claim no expertise of my own in this matter.

I think this rifle may well have come from NZ anyway, as that seems to be the main source of pre-MkIII Enfields these days. I'm guessing only NZ and Austrailian rifles escaped the big conversion to Mk1***? I think you're right, it's just the safety catch itself (and possibly the associated bits and pieces) that's a MkIII part, but I don't know how to spot the correct item - is the profile the same as a III?

Hello Lashenden. Good on you for going into the depths of the model to sort the fine details. You are in the right place to get the answers.
A lot of what you seek is in the writings of Ian Skennerton, things like production figures of the Mk1* are on p396 of the Lee Enfield Story. This states there were 60,187 made at Enfield and 3,020 at Ishapore.
The safety of the Mk1 is the same as the safety of the MkIII except the earlier one will have the maker's stamp visible on the outside. At that point there was only one model, so no need to mark it with the model.
The rear swivel pictured by RCS above is the correct one for the Mk1. It had a square boss as opposed the round ball type boss on the earlier Long Lee production.

In the search for everything correct, read the text here at this link to the Milsurps Knowledge Library entry. There is no such rifle as a No1 mk1. The documented proof is there.

Milsurps Knowledge Library - 1903 ShtLE (Short Lee-Enfield) Mk1 Rifle

Thanks for the clarification - so I'm now on a hunt for an unmarked or BSA-marked safety catch? Re. production figures, I'd read the table you mention in The Lee Enfield Story, so assumed the total 1* production must be Enfield and Ishapore plus BSA and LSA, for which no figures are available. Hence my first guess for 150,000 as a generous maximum total. Actually, it seems likely to be much less than that (if wikipaedia is accurate), as BSA had been promised 25% of SMLE production when they purchased Sparkbrook from the government, but didn't get the orders, prompting a financial crisis for the company in 1907. So maybe it's more like 75-100,000 total, depending on whether whether Enfield's 60,000 rifles were notionally 50% or 75% of the total production. These are all back of an envelope guesstimates, but nontheless 1*s seem to represent a very small slice of 16 million LEs!
Any further thoughts on 1* rear swivels?

Lashenden, Buying some good books will help the restoration. There are other small changes that you could look into such as the following: the cut-off, there is a first variation if you are going to use one, safety catch has sharp edges later ones has the bevel edges, safety spring, early has the screw hole that is not countersunk. Also the proper magazine case, backsight group and barleycorn front would all help with the restoration. The rear handguard clip has only one spring too. It is very difficult to find most of these parts but other collectors might be the best chance in locating them

Thanks for all those tips, RCS. Which books have this level of detail? - this is exactly the fine grain of information that I haven't been able to extract from the books I've consuted so far.

I have several older MLE's (1896's and 1902's) all with brass/gunmetal buttplates. How does one identify the metal used? So the No4 would be brass in which case a visual comparison could be made, which I shall go and do.

Oh, on the safety catch - I was referring to the catch itself being a MkIII which could have been on any rifle (just to clarify). I have no idea when or where the safety catch Mk's would have changed or what the changes might have been or even if that is correct.

I have a 1904 SHT LE I. It too came with a brass/gunmetal buttplate. (That's the one with integral charger half bridge on body and sliding other half on the bolt head). If a collector wants the action body I might do a swap - I'm only using it as a bush gun. Anyway, would that have the gunmetal buttplate?

Right, so I've had a look. What I see is a brass buttplate with three screws and a bronze hinge plate for one of the older guns (now idea which one) and for my 1917, 1940 and 1944 SMLE's I see two screw brass buttplates with a brass hinge plate. The latter have the III on the safety as does the 1904 SHT LE I. (The 1944 SMLE is a 25-303 Sporter - accurate rifle!) All three of my SMLE's are BSA's, the 25-303 is a Lithgow.

You know, I lost my 1902 buttplate in a move - pity.

So it seems only the hinge plates on my sample is gunmetal. (I have more somewhere).

I understand that this rifle came originally with this butt from New Zealand complete with the other items on this rifle, the question is do you change this part as it 'may have been on this rifle all its live'. Or change it to the mk1* butt plate as you have been offered by EFD. Originality may be the former and to change it may change its 100 years history to an item that may never have been fitted even though it should have. Too many Enfield have been played with, by changing it as Loc 13577 states for the mk1* butt plate as should have been fitted, you may be replacing a part that was never fitted in the first place but should have been. When you own a rifle such as this you are buying into the past, this 1906 Mk1* has not been mucked about with why start now.

I have been asked by EFD on there behalf to post this reply.

Paul, can you respond on my behalf? my e-mail is down. "This rife is 1906 MkI* made as a MkI* by BSA. It only remains an unmodified MkI* because it came from Australasia. It appears to have original woodwork, including an armourers repair. It came with steel butt plate single point rear sling swivel and safety marked III. I had another exactly similar. This rifle is 107 years old! Been through two World Wars and countless field Amourers hands, who's priorities were not the rifles future heritage. I have every version of MkI in my collection, none have bronze butt plates and half have safeties marked "III" such is the record of field armoures! Also even my very good friend Ian Skennerton's World renown Enfield bible can be awry in some detail; I have two pure MkI's; no modifications, dated 1910. The bible says last production 1908! Frequently I am asked for 100 year old Enfields so perfect they could be "factory fresh" few such rifles exist outside the Pattern Room collection. I have a completely original British Military 1906 MkI* transfered to the Queensland Police in 1907 and never been to war, this has Brass butt plate, not bronze! Geoffrey Organ

Apologies for the delay in responding to these two posts - I don't check the forums as often as I might. But I note a slight change in the temperature of the conversation here! So, to sum up and reassure, my original post was a request for information. Firstly I will re-state that I'm not dissatisfied with this rifle (or EFD) in any way. I'd just like to know more about how my new purchase might have been composed in 1906 so I'm consulting the enfield-owning community about some fairly obscure matters - it appears, for instance, that no-one contributing to this thread has actually encountered a 'gunmetal' buttplate. Now I may be new-ish to Enfields, but I'm not unfamiliar with the ethics of restoration. I have no intention of doing anything irreversible, I'm in no hurry at all and I may on consideration leave everything well alone. However, the rifle does diverge from the official specification, and I'd like to know what's original, what's part of it's service history and what may be post-disposal swapping-out of parts - surely that's what much of the discussion on these forums is about? If, at some point, I obtain a 'correct to original specification' part that can be substituted with no detriment to the rifle and I retain the former component, as has always been my practice, I'm quite comfortable with doing that. To sum up your posts, you're saying 'thats how it came to the UK' and that fact needs to be given due weight, I agree.

Unless they changed the composition along the way, I think most "brass" Enfield buttplates are gunmetal bronze. But I haven't referenced that info lately, so that's just a SWAG at this point. Looking forward to a more definitive answer vis. the alloy. The shape issue has been dealt with eariler in this thread, I think.